American democracy is broken

Yeah, so when you vote (in your state) for someone who loses the popular vote but assumes ALL the EC-votes, that means nothing to you.

And thus the fact that the US elected the LOSER OF THE POPULAR VOTE as president (for you ) in not in the least bit a moral injustice.

Got it!

(And you an keep it!)

 

Exactly. When 55% of the votes in one state become 100% of the EC votes, FORTY FIVE PERCENT of the voters aren't represented!

 

Could it be the political parties, the way they act, their ultra partisanship, their candidates offered that is the turn off? Between 1942-1970 an average of 75% of all Americans identified with our two major parties. Some years that was above 80%. During those years 60% plus voted in presidential elections when there was but one day to vote. No early voting. The decline in party affiliation continued until around 2007 when the total percentage the two major parties made up of the total electorate fell below 60%. During this time only around an average of 54% voted in presidential election to include the low of 49% in 1996. Today if Gallup is to be believed, the two major parties only make up around 55% of the total electorate with independents at 44%. Only 15% of the electorate considered themselves independents back in 1944. It was in 1972 independents broke the 30% barrier and in 2015 the 40% barrier.

https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

In 2016 25% of all Americans disliked and didn't want neither Trump nor Clinton to become president. This included 54% of all independents. Why should independents vote if they don't want neither of the two major party candidates to be their next president?

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

Should someone be made to choose when 57% of independents have a negative view of one candidate and 70% the other? Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

I think everyone should have the right to vote. They also should have the right to say the heck with it when they dislike both major party candidates along with both major parties. What we need is a couple of more viable political parties. Where just not the far extreme right and the far extreme left are represented.

If we are forced to just keep the two major parties, we need to add none of the above to every ballot. If none of the above wins, then a new election is held with all candidates who were on the ballot when none of the above won, barred from being on the ballot in the new election.

There's a reason both major parties have shrunk and continue to do so. They have ceased to represent America as a whole. Just their base which is getting smaller and smaller.

 

Malarkey. Comparing Hillary with Hitler is pathetic.

No one, including me, indicated that Americans were the worst-educated. Because they are not!

See here:

All I am saying is that NOT ENOUGH Americans are obtaining a post-secondary degree, and the primary reason is cost. Most importantly, research tells us that insufficient income is a major factor for high crime rates:

And I figure that a key factor in high crime-rates in the US is that too many people are living at the minimal-wage rate because they cannot afford to obtain a post-secondary degree ...

 

They are most certainly the worst-educated populace in the 'western world'. I never meant they were the worst-educated in the world.

 

Sadly, I can't say that's wrong. Too much media/TV/internet consumption has done that to us as a nation. But also, democracy is the worst form of government. Churchill says "except all those that have been tried before", but I remain adamant that an authoritarian nation under a good authoritarian is better than any democracy.

 

And neither is that true! See here:


The US ranks sixth above amongst OECD countries (which is the only reasonable comparison). The US also ranks BEHIND Canada by a full ten percentage points!

And why? Here's why:

Cost of post-secondary education in the US:


The above costs should be divided by four in order to obtain "annual total costs". When done, the cost per year is around $4K for a public-college post-secondary education.

How does anyone expect a family below the Poverty Threshold (earning $24K per year for a family of four) to be able to find $4K to send their kids to a state-school (to obtain post-secondary schooling-credentials and find a decent job)?

So, what EXACTLY would you propose for that family were you one of them?

I would propose this simple solution:
*Cut the DoD budget ($718B!) in half and tell them to "make-do" with it!
*Expend the $350B in a DoE (E = Education) investment in post-secondary education by state.
*But, that aint gonna be enough! High-schools around the country are graduating:

*So, how do we fund the need to assure post-secondary education credentials?!?
*I HAVE NO ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

Do you ... ?

 

Well, in fact, I do. But, let's put the question into better focus.

The calculations are not rigorous, but to send 3.6 million students to some sort of post-secondary education (vocational, associates, bachelors, maters, doctorate) degree would nonetheless be very, very expensive.

Especially, if (as I never tire of suggesting) the US must adopt a National Healthcare System as well. (Ensuring people a way to make a decent living is nonsense if that "living" is being shortened by massive obesity and its health-consequences leading to shorter life-spans around the nation!)

Frankly, I think it would cost about the same as the entire DoD budget both funded by the national government. (For which there is no real desire to do so as of yet.)

But, one fact is damn sure. Reducing Upper-income Taxation (as Donald Dork has a want to do (in order to assure his next 4-years in the Awful-Office) is NOT THE WAY TO GO ... !

Just the opposite is called for along with higher income-taxation all down the line. Which, of course, most Americans will not want to swallow.

And why no-one who wants to achieve that massive change in expenditure-direction will ever get elected any time soon ...

 

I don't know about that. I have always been a great advocate of Democracy and I consider it the most important attribute to any nation. But I think I understand your point of view considering the way the U.S. is governed.

If we think of Putin as an authoritarian we can see the positive side of his way of governing. No BS, he just spells it out and that's the way it is. So far, he's been pretty much right too.

But if you see the U.S. government as being a Democratic one you cannot help but see the faults with approval need for this and approval needed for that, etc. HOWEVER, I cannot see the U.S. as a Democratic nation anyway. It is corrupt by way of the power of the Military-Industrial Complex ..... which is not Democratic at all. The approval business is all faked. So, if that is not Democratic then what is? Yes, that's right, a Democracy really does govern "For the people, by the people, of the people" .... and that is good. Really good.

 

And neither is that true! See here:

The US ranks sixth above amongst OECD countries (which is the only reasonable comparison). The US also ranks BEHIND Canada by a full ten percentage points!

And why? Here's why:

What percentage might that be? From here (relating only to Canada):

Whilst in the US it looks more like this (from here):

 

I understand your point but that's not really the issue.

I suppose if your definition of "education" is the number of students enrolled within the educational system (or the amount of money spent) then you will arrive at some figure. But I am talking about standards. American standards are piss-poor and Americans cannot compare with citizens of other western nations when it comes to actual knowledge (if that is the right word for it).

 

I think that's very accurate. Democracy in Sweden(and most of the EU States) is far and beyond the United States. They actually do have multiple party choices. A Nationalist like myself has a space(even if a small space) in England. Here in America, I am a "trumpster". In a beautiful city like Luxembourg, everyone knows everyone and as a result it's a relatively peaceful place.

Even in Japan, where politics is apolitical, social bonds are more than this country. America weeps in an age of decadence and lack of leadership.

 

Bollocks! That's what led Germany to Adopt the Nazis. Because they promised FIRST & FOREMOST to end the the War Payments (to Britain and France) signed in the treaty to end WW!. What happened? The economy started to rebound. (Oh, wow! Brilliant deduction!)

Hitler was very careful not to mention what he had planned for the Jews! Which he did do nonetheless to stir the sentiment and see how it "played". It played well as it always has in Europe. (If you take away the right of people to own and work the land - in what is the Agricultural Age - then what are they supposed to do. Right! They set up businesses in large towns where there is a Demand for their financial acuity!

The Rabid Right in America would not likely stoop to that level. Even Trump who seems to be limitless in his own inaneness would not dare do that. (But, in fact, the guy is demented and he has been for a long, long time. See here.)

What Replicants want is simply to maintain the current system. Whazzat?

Low Income Taxation that allows them to earn and keep nearly unlimited amounts of money. Is that acceptable in a nation where nearly 40 million people live in the Poverty Threshold?

The super-rich percentage ownership of Total Net Worth (which is Wealth minus Debt) is colossal. As shown here:


Extract from the article:

Who says, "That's the way the cookie crumbles!" The Replicants do!

MY POINT: The country needs to wake-up to the acute problem of WRETCHED INCOME DISPARITY ... !

 

America does indeed have some world leading educational institutions. However, the raw statistics given here only tell us how many passed through particular levels of tertiary/post grad education etc. It tells us nothing of the quality of degrees obtained. One thing I do know from visiting the US frequently. The general US population's understanding of world geography is appalling. Tell them I’m from Australia and they invariably locate my home country in Europe. As to degree quality the standard of tertiary degrees in arts, economics and business subjects have plunged all over the western world in the last several decades. I suggest allowing M BA’s to become the heads of tertiary institutions is the main reason along with the main reason for the degradation of the English language.

 

So, if we parse through this post and simplify it, one would say that if not for war crimes and the second world war(not to mention the racism against Jews), Germany under Hitler at least pre-war period, was a pretty good place to live? That seems to make my argument for me.(Pre-war Italy also says hello.)

The economic mobility under a centralized economy, with the key point being production seems to outproduce the consumer and impoverished system, every time. It is the "illusion" of choice, trapped in debt that leads to the "revolutionary" pick in the first place.

By contrast, it was only when the US held supreme power status(as Britain did a generation prior), that democracy enjoyed a realm of success. That's how flawed democracy is, it has to be dictated to actually work.

And it sells itself as anti-authoritarian? ROFL. A bunch of hypocrisy dressed up as failure.

 

You say that you are a Nationalist. Lately, the term has taken on a tone similar Nazism, but it doesn't have to. You can be a nationalist who criticizes the rest of the world and makes excuses (usually illogical ones) for your own nation. It's more hatred for everyone else than love for your own. Or you can be a Nationalist who generates enthusiasm to correct your own nation's faults. That's love for your own nation and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

I don't hate other nations(or races, for that matter.) I'm actually very indifferent on those and have been throughout my life. If I let myself get caught up on the skin pigmentation of an individual, I'll lose opportunities to advance other agendas: Namely, health care, education, etc.

And as far as other Nations, it's very simple: As a proponent of the Monroe Doctrine, insofar as no nation threatens the Western Hemisphere and the nation-states involved in the hemisphere, I have absolutely no problem. I'd even completely withdraw from the middle east, if the conditions on the ground permit(IE: Either the disabling of radical factions in the ME, or a peace treaty/promise not to attack the US.) But because neither of these things has materialized(and with the hatred of a "muslim ban"), the US is in a perpetual state of war, regardless of who's in office. Call it a war of cowardice.

To me, a Nationalist means being pro-my agenda first. If it helps other agendas along the way, that's fine and dandy but I want to pursue my/our agendas, ideally without hurting others. Sometimes it doesn't work that way, but I think if we negotiate in good faith, we can navigate the traffic of activity by the world, for the world's benefit.

 

WW2 was hell for the German people. You don't seem to understand where Germany is and the fact that it is very largely landlocked!

So, yes, after the war, the German people were amenable to ANY SOLUTION that promised them a better life. They hooked onto Hitler for that very reason.

Illusion? What illusion?!?

Before I go any further on this one please explain your meaning of "Centralized Economy". Do you mean a "socialist economy" where all the means of production are owned by the state. Or do you mean the present-day "Social Democracy" based upon the capitalist system of money-exchange for goods/services in a competitive market-economy? (With an accent upon Fundamental Needs throughout the Income Spectrum - from bottom to top!)

Awaiting your answer to that one with bated-breath!

Can't imagine where you fished for that notion. Dictating democracy is an obtuse and ignorant proposition. Aside from being illogical. A democracy is either free or dictated but never both.

But I will presume that you are very much like other Replicants on this forum who like to dice "democracy" because they are infatuated with the word "republic". When, in fact, both words are mutually synonymous! Ta dah ... !

What happened as a direct result of WW1 AND WW2 is that the US replaced Europe as the "prize economy" worth replicating around the world. Americans had become generally richer and showed the world. (But, what it did not show and did not want the world to see, was its abject poverty. Which was generalized particularly in lower-income states because BigMoney was focused in the large cities across the nation.)

Europe but not America has learned to employ higher taxation, that is, tax-revenues spent on "equilibrating forces" like National HealthCare and low-cost Tertiary Education, to make more level the distribution of income!

That is, in economic terms, to lower Income Disparity.

An infographic showing Income Disparity amongst nations is available of a roughly similar economic structures (namely OECD countries) - and is shown here. You will note that the US is on the upper-end of the national income-inequality scale ... !

 

Europe is not financially benefited by its high taxes, but that it can afford its expensive programs due to outsourcing its military to the United States. We literally continue to pay the Europeans for peace in their volatile region. I can't say it hasn't been a worthwhile investment in the sense of peace and stability in the world. But America has gotten diminishing returns with protectionist nations as well as a lack of buying into America markets.

So we are soon reaching a point where the American cutoff is inevitable and will happen. I wonder what Europe will do without its biggest investor? The initial response has been to pal around with China, but we Americans already know what that experience is like. China will cut off the Europeans from their market, and you'll sooner see a cold war of trade occur between two large nation-states with the exact same philosophy on INTL markets.

Now, on centralized economy I mean to regulate market traffic as to enable the safe flow of commercial goods. There's literally TRILLIONS of dollars locked in student debt, in financial debt and derivative blackholes. I would love to get rid of these blackholes, thereby returning that money to the people. I'd love to also enable financial education programs and a business creation model that enables us to turn our citizens into CEO'S and businesspeople. We have a 80/20 ratio in favor of workers/business. That has helped that suppressed wage you brought up.

I wish to aim for a more equal 60/40. Slightly reducing the number of workers but doubling the amount of businesses(and jobs available) that will finally be available to those hordes of unemployed.

If my plan works, the US can finally divorce the worst system in the world: Democracy. And all of its rotten, smelly existence. To paraphrase Nietzche: Democracy is dead, we killed democracy. And yes, as you point out we were at one point a Federal Republic.

So the rebellion against a foreign system, entrenched into the US was inevitable.

 

Yes, it was - until he started rounding-up the Jews and sending them off to extinction camps.. Let's stick to historical fact, shall we?

If you mean such systems as ran the countries in Eastern Europe and Russia up to about the early 1990s, then you are evidently "dead wrong"! If they died (or where subtly overthrown) it was because the people had had enough of them - and wanted to live a life more akin to that of Western Europe.

Nobody inflicted "democracy" on Europe. It was invented in Greece and the word employed in Latin: democratiam. Of course, like any bold idea about human relationships, it has had its historic ups-and-downs. It actually took a long, long time to finally impose itself.

It was the US and France that first employed the word democracy seriously as a counterpoint to the existing "kingdoms" at the time (1770s). People like Franklin and Jefferson discussed the subject with French counterparts at the Procope restaurant that is still in Paris. Franklin was ambassador to France when France was then supporting with troops the American revolution.

The US went on to become a democracy. The French took a long time to finally become one. (Blame that on Napoleon!)

Moving right along ...

 

So you are a good nationalist.

 

I find it interesting, in your opinion, on our voting process. I would think you would have more time railing "for or against" the weekly protests on the streets of Paris. With that said, I will offer an opinion, against all of this talk about forced voting.

If one actually lived in America they would find a spirit of independence against government rule. Yet, everyday, one can read or hear about some idea about how to rig the system to get more people to vote. A couple examples:

Lower the voting age from 18 to 16. - Really? We have just about taken civics out of the classroom, unless it teaches diversity and love of everybody. We have college students all over America who cannot name who their own Representative in Congress is. Teachers have a strong desire to teach only one point of view as they are beholden to one party.

Give voting rights to illegals or non-citizens - Really? One of the privilege's of obtaining citizenship is the "Right to Vote". Immigrants that wish to assimilate into American culture and learn the basic's of it's Constitution and laws and wish to become American are granted citizenship and the opportunity to register to vote.

Make voting mandatory. - Really? I find it very comforting to know many of my fellow citizens are not voting. If one does not wish to take the time, to study the issues and register to vote, then I feel that my vote has more meaning. I hate it when I hear people say they vote for one party because that's what their parents always voted for. Others say they never watch the news or read the paper and yet vote with no knowledge of the issues. The latest fad seems to be "I get my News off the internet" . Umm, Umm, Umm.

Make Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. a state - Really? Hear again, what we have, is one party trying to arrange massive gerrymandering on a wholescale level. Both have been basket cases and welfare entities and dependent on the Federal government for assistance. Washington D.C. was set up to be the peoples seat in government and not to be part of any other individual state. Many in Puerto Rico would like to be granted Independence from the USA, meanwhile, others are receive welfare and assistance from the American people.

Grant convicted felons the Right to Vote - Really? Here again we have a case where one party would like to usurp "states rights" for their own political gain.

I believe we had a better system when the Parties elected the person to be the nominee. It seems what we have now is a popularity contest of the people.

 

"My candidate lost. Democracy is broken!"

Like a 6-year-old who's losing at checkers, so they pick up the board, and fling it across the room.

Children.

 

Why should I. I could give a damn about the weekly protests in Paris?

I'm a Yank. Get used to it.

I have lived in America. I live better in Europe. (And I am not the only Yank here. It is estimated that we are around 300,000. Probably more.)

You have a bad habit of quoting statements never made. They are not "given", they are earned. You must show good faith over time, and learn the Civic basics of the country. (Which also means they probably know how the country runs better than a good many Americans since Civics Courses are not the very best possible. When they should be.)

No, migrants to America (no one is an immigrant until nationalized!) should be allowed to enter by obtaining a Written Permit from the American Embassy in their country. Which means they have a job-offer and a duration-period. After which, their work-permit is no longer valid. So, they go home.

If they stay and work, the both them AND THEIR EMPLOYER should go to jail and think about. In addition, the American employer can pay a significant fine for hiring cheap-labor. illegally.

Yes, that right they were born with. It is endemic to all citizens of a Truly Democratic country and comes as a birth-right - therefore it cannot be revoked under any circumstances whatsoever.

There are damn few countries with a two-party system. Even the UK, which divides commonly into Left and Right (like we do) does or did have a third party in the middle. So, it is not Mission Impossible. Just Mission Improbable.

Frankly, I think the US should do the same by taking those who switch back-and-forth between both parties create a centrist-party. Called, uh, the Centrist Party. (Why not?)

This switching back and forth between the two parties is not working. Especially given the deviance of Gerrymandering and the Electoral College - along with the BigMoney influence in elections. Americans are mistaking their politicians for Hollywood personalities because they watch too much TV.

It is difficult to imagine any election system so wrong along with a people who could care less about righting it ...[/QUOTE]

 

Well, you see, it is illegal to carry an automatic weapon in France. So, there are no mass-massacres as in the US. Thus, protesters get out on a Saturday and march down the main-street of a town to get the TV-people to show-up. There they give publicly their grievance.

Guns are not good in most of Europe. Which is why YOUR gun-deaths in the US (meaning also the possibility of death) are much greater - and by global comparison highly significant statistically. (See infographic here.)

You're dreaming. Or, you live in the wilds of Nebraska. Whichever, the above comment is balderdash.

Americans watch far too much TV, munching chips on a large sofa. Which is why obesity is a plague in the US.

We enjoy especially films that have a lot of bloody death-scenes. Can't imagine why. They are gross.

Ask a psychologist why. From this book: Why are we fascinated by death, horror and violence? (Written by a psychologist.) Excerpt:

Violence is never good regardless of the circumstance, and wherever it is permitted by national indifference the seeds of mutual destruction are also planted.

Or as many Americans would say, "Hey! If you wanna kill yourselves, that's your business! Have fun!"

Well it ain't - the reason why is of KEY IMPORTANCE. We are not a group of individuals who happen to live together but are all independent. Meaning this:
If you look long enough at the way apes in Africa live, you will not that there is a striking resemblance! About the only similarity are the females looking after their offspring. The males fight one another for dominance and the ability to engender the most children.

We are not that, and should not be. It should be rather this:

Methinks ...